Good afternoon everyone. It's 4:35 on Tuesday, April 28th. Apologies for the delay. Um so we will uh kind of have a just very quick introduction and get to our committee uh presentations. This is the meeting of the uh board of education's facilities and procurement
committee in addition to my colleagues, board member Hendy Newell and Ortiz Franklin. We're joined by um David Rodriguez, a procure a procurement warehouse representative Becky Cunningham, a district parent. um Eric Grier uh a district parent um and then our chief procurement officer Matt
Freriedman, our chief facilities executive Christina Tes and other folks who will be presenting. Um I will quickly go through our purpose. I think we know we have our welcome and introductions. We are going to have our um uh facilities advocacy
state update first then procurement overview discussion of proposed facilities procurement delegation of authority. That was an item that was um postponed from the board meeting to this committee. so the committee could discuss and provide recommendations to the full board, an update on shade overplay projects, and then our public
comment. Um, so actually, I guess I'll just go through to get to >> Martha's presentation. Oh, there. And um, as we're doing that, I will introduce
um, Martha Alvarez. So, we often hear in this committee over the last few years that state requirements are part of what causes our projects to be expensive and delayed. Um, and so we're going to turn it over to Martha Alvarez to talk about how we are advocating at the state to eliminate barriers and discuss how we can increase and strengthen that
advocacy. I think through collaboration with Miss Alvarez and um Miss Tes and and others, we've seen where we're able to administratively reduce some burdens or as the largest district by far in the state um throw our weight around a little bit to get some of our legislative priorities uh passed so that
we can make it easier to uh do facilities projects down here. So, I'll turn it over to Miss Alvarez. One sec. All right. Good afternoon, board members and committee. Um, thank you for having me this afternoon. Um, and thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to go
first on the agenda. Um, I only have uh two slides. Um so I will be um fast and happy to answer questions. Um I would like to first acknowledge uh Sasha Horwitz from our Sacramento office uh LA Unified colleague on my team and Christina who supports our advocacy on
facilities related items. Um and thankfully we have our chief uh facilities executive here as well should you have more questions uh to go into detail about the different procurement methods and contracting that we pursue for these particular bills that we're we're we have in Sacramento. Um every year our board of education approves our
our priorities for um advocacy, both policy and funding that we pursue at all levels of government, uh local, state, and federal. Um this year the board approved four bills for LA Unified to pursue in Sacramento. Um and two of them um are facilities related, which you see on the first slide. Uh it's important to
note that um as the case this year um almost on average every year we have um roughly between a third to half of our bills that we sponsor that LA Unified is a proponent that are related to facilities. Uh always looking for opportunities to um find efficiencies um
reduce costs for the district um and benefit um the overall um goal of meeting timelines and projects in a timely manner. Um so with with that in mind um two of our bills this year that we're sponsoring are AB1809 by Amber Fong and Senate Bill 1107 by Senator
Stern. Um AB1809 is a bill it's um it's a continuation of a policy that we have pursued in Sacramento for over the last 23 years. Um this bill would be looking to make it into a permanent part of law. Um but as of now there might be a uh
reason to scale back that we may only get some an extension to 10 years. Um we are uh arguing that because we've had this policy this flexibility in place for over 23 years uh it is now time to make it uh permissive um just on an ongoing basis. Uh but again we may have
to scale back to be 10 years. What this bill does um it would allow school districts and community colleges so others throughout California not specific to LA USD um to continue to use the job order contracting method. Um this is an alternative project u delivery method that allows school
districts and community colleges to negotiate a master agreement um or different service terms um that would allow us to complete projects under one single master contract. One example to use would be um uh whenever we uh have
windows to uh for maintenance or repair at schools um in order to be efficient with the pursuit of the project. we would have one master contract and that would um delineate the the cost of the project um that we would know ahead of time. And so instead of delaying um if
we need to uh replace a window uh one gets broken broken at the school or a school has a break-in instead of having to re uh wait um for a new bid um and procuring a new vendor. Um, this allows us to be able to have one master
contract in place um that we can leverage and just be able to utilize that contractor where the cost of the um of the uh project um of the task was um delineated beforehand um instead of having to go out and bid it on a particular single project. Um so it
allows us to do the work immediately um and know that ahead of time. Um that's for the the first bill for Senate Bill 1107. Um, Los Angeles Unified, we had a bill that we sponsored in 2023 also by Senator Sterns Senate Bill 515. That
bill um was our attempt to uh reduce the cost and the the bureaucracy uh from the state level um that makes shade structures more expensive to complete on a school campus. Um since then that bill became law um in 2023. Uh we've also
been uh working very closely with our uh legal council, with our facilities department um and others uh to better inform how can we continue to um mitigate any costs that might be uh coming from the state level. Um we this bill will be amended in the coming
weeks. Um right now it's headed over to the assembly. Um but this bill um would uh under the amendments that we're pursuing um uh we our goal will be to reduce cost. Uh, one way that we're exploring doing that is by um authorizing school districts that have
um the pursue shade structure projects um allowing us to bundle multiple projects um as part of uh one single bid. Um so instead of having to bid out individual projects that's um smaller economies of scale, we would be able to have multiple design build
projects um into into one bid. Um again with the purpose uh the goal of having lower cost and being able to um expedite the the delivery of the project. Um and again um should you have more questions um after I go next slide um um I'm
grateful that my colleague Christina Toes um is here so she can also explain more about our our thinking working with her office around this this particular issue. And then this last bill is one that we're supporting. It's not the one that um that we are the sponsors of um but it is one that we want to have as
our back pocket as an option um for future use by LA Unified. Um this bill is also a sunset extension that would continue to allow um school districts to use a competitive um bidding process for awarding the lease lease back contract
for school construction projects. Um this is um again uh an option that we would want to have um should we want to leverage this in the future. But um more recently, LA Unified, we've been using the um best value procurement method um as a way to uh have more cost
effectiveness and um and help us meet the goals of the facility construction timelines. Um so with that, I will um wrap up my slides and again um let me go back and let me know if you have questions that I will do my best to answer and if not, I will defer to
Christina. Um, but really want to acknowledge my colleague Sasha from our team in Sacramento who's the lead on facilities issues for us. >> Great. Thank you, Miss Alvarez. And I'll turn to colleagues for questions or comments. Mr. Rodriguez. >> Yeah. I'm um we don't have the ability
through our Moss to replace windows. That's a qu I'm asking. It's a question. >> Hi Christina Tes, chief facilities executive. Yes, absolutely. most of our like window repairs are done by in-house
M forces. >> Okay. So then >> so typically like we would use jock if um we're doing a repetitive piece of work um that we don't have the
sufficient in-house labor to do at that time and then it's going to be over. So, let's say um I'm going to use a madeup example, but we're going to do uh replace the matting under playgrounds and we don't have enough internal
resources to let's say spend nine months to just replace playground matting, but we could use jock to say, okay, you've already given us kind of a menu of a pre-approved price. There's not a lot of specialized engineering. There's not a design component. There's not a DSA. we
would like you to just execute 20 sites using jocks to go do this work and then you're done. Um, and that would be an example of something that we could use jock for. But the window replacement typically there's not like a large scale window replacement program and when
windows are leaking and or like damaged, we just have our own M shops go out and repair them. >> Okay, that that was So then would be something like it's an outdated school, we need to go and do the whole school, something like Okay, >> thank you. Sure. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Just a couple for me then. Um, thank you again, Martha. So, one, you know, process-wise, um, I would hope, you know, given how much this committee and the board at large has heard just about delays at the state level. I mean, these three, and I'm going to ask about the Stern bill in
particular, are important, but I I would assume that there are more legislative fixes that we might need or want. And I know we are working administratively and there are some meetings coming up around DSA review and some of the expedited timelines around the Palisades rebuilds and seeing if we can expand that. But
I'm curious like were these how did these become the the only three bills we were working on? Was it just a capacity issue? Was it what we heard from facilities or why not you know more advocacy? >> Sure. So thank you for the question and we would be happy to take not only issues that we can start exploring now
and see what we can do through the budget um cycle or also through any other vehicles other other bills that may be not pursued by us right now but they might be u pursued by someone else. So we don't have to wait until the board takes action again in December for us to explore those issues. Um specific specific to a question about these three
issues. Um to clarify the only two bills that Lunifi is sponsoring are this first two that you see on this slide SB AB 1809 and SP 1107. The other third bill is one that we're supporting. Um my office, we uh are tracking over 500 bills on all different issue areas. Um
and there's a a lot of other facility bills that we're tracking. Um but from a prioritization standpoint, I we thought Sasha and I that these would be the most relevant for the group here. Um but we can provide um a more detailed information about other bills. Um there's some about main uh maintenance and operation. There's about office
environmental health and safety. Um there's some about school um uh housing uh just housing as a whole. make it affordable in California. Um so there's a lot many other bills that we're tracking. Um we chose this bills working with facilities the ones that for one
because AB1809 it sunsets in January of 2027. So we could not we we don't have a uh we cannot delay further if the law sunseted we would not be able to leverage the current statute. So we wanted to make it permanent or an amendment for 10 more years. um 11:07 um
it is uh giving acknowledgement to board member uh chair Melvinne. Um it is an issue that he and other board members have brought up to us in the past. So we wanted to work with our facilities department to determine other ways to uh to make um shade structures more more cost effective. Um and this is what we
what we're working on. Um so there's not really an issue of capacity. My team and I will work on anything that we determine that we can pursue per the board's um direction every year. Uh typically we do a survey to offices uh our board offices, our divisions um and
others uh around August, September. We do research we uh meet with committee consultants with other stakeholders that might be impacted by the policy proposal. Uh we meet with them in the fall and then the goals to come to the board in December. So, um, any ideas that we bring to the board, um, we do
our due diligence in the fall to research them and vet them and see what kind of support, opposition, cost, uh, barriers we might encounter along the process. Um, but to underscore, like I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, um, every year between a half to a third of the bills that we sponsor
are related to facilities. Um, in my tenure with the district, I can tell you that there's probably been a minimum of two bills at least every year related to facilities. So given that it is um a significant uh amount of funding that we um we have been entrusted by the voters in in LA, we ensure that we're pursuing
policies in Sacramento that can help us um deliver on those projects in a timely and cost- effective manner. >> Thank you. And that and and thank you for reminding folks that you're there to kind of execute on the district's priorities. I will say that I found even in the last 48 hours, there are some key priorities of this board around housing,
which I won't I won't opine on now, where we are feel like we're limited by state law and no one has called someone at the state level to say like is are we limited? Can we get a fix? Is there a waiver? And so I just would reiterate again to the board and to the administrative colleagues that like we
uh sometimes just don't ask questions and then we could be pushing against an open door. Um on this the Stern bill specifically um in addition to the bundling multiple design projects, my understanding is that it also you know one of the things that this committee has discussed around shade structures is
that so much of the cost is the ADA improvements that are triggered by the shade structure and is is it true that the last bill we ran brought it down to 25% and this one is bringing it down to 20% or is there any more movement around
the kind of 88 percentage for shade structures. >> So, um I'll I'll um answer briefly and then I'll also invite Christina to chime in on this since we've been working with her and her office on this. Um the bill as I mentioned currently as proposed uh is the way that you described trying to
um reduce the requirement even further for the path of travel uh regarding um the the um ADA compliance. However, as mentioned in this bullet point, uh we are working on some amendments. they have not become um publicly available yet as we're still refining the language. But the goal would try to uh
would be to um maybe pivot the strategy after further discussion with Christina and our legal team. Um there might be a better way to bundle projects. Um and the way that uh I don't want to speak for Christina, but the way that she described it to me and she can further elaborate is that uh perhaps we would be
um pursuing one single bid for three schools. That total would be about a million dollars. Um but right now we're limited by the contracting rules at the state. So we're looking to amend SB1007 to allow us that bundling of multiple shade structure projects for let's say
three different campuses that collectively might be a $1 million project. Um but right now we can only use some of those bidding um policies for if it's over a million dollars or more. So by bundling projects we'll be able to um that can help with cost efficiency and selecting a vendor that can help um you know with the projects.
But Christina, do you want to elaborate or clarify anything I just said? I'll only add to um you we're looking at various ways that we can reduce costs on shade shelters. We don't yet have a um input from the industry marketplace of
whether or not this would help. But we need to kind of reach out to them. One of the things that we've learned when we've done design build is while we've gotten a lot of response from the marketplace on large design builds, when we've tried to do smaller design build
projects um between the $3 to5 million range, we didn't see a lot of participation. This one, as Martha was saying, we're limited um with the way that design builds currently works is that you have to have it by site and we don't plan on spending a million dollars
on a sheet shelter at a one site. So, we are looking at how do we um go out to the marketplace and maybe bundle by region or area or community so that we would have multiple sites that we would put under one design build contract. But
we do need to go out and see what kind of appetite there is from contractors who do this type of work. They're not the big GC's. And would they be interested in doing like 15 uh shade shelter projects with one contract right
now? We don't have the flexibility to even explore that. um this to us is a very lowrisk you know proposal and even if we don't see that um necessarily interest now we could build it in the marketplace which is something that we've talked about. >> Yeah. I guess my disappointment is that
I think we've been talking about this for months and so the fact that we haven't gone out and asked the industry if it's possible is frustrating but I appreciate that. Also I still don't understand why it's a design like there are off we'll talk about in the shade structure presentation but there are a lot of off-the-shelf shade structures. I
don't think they need to be designed. My final request because I have not gotten clarity on this is one of the things we did with the Stern bill last time is we reduced the ADA path of travel, you know, down to 20. And I've been told multiple times that 20 is the federal minimum. Yes. But I no one has shown me
where that's from. >> So, I can follow up with you. We do have a little write up that we can follow up with you and your staff. Um I'll do that by tomorrow. We we have a um update. Uh and I want to acknowledge board member and chair member Mel Meloyne because it is one of our federal advocacy that was brought to us um as direction of the
board in December. Uh looking at what we could do at the federal level. Um there is um a concern that uh just with disability rights that we might be opening up an unintended consequence about the perception that we're trying to steer away from disability rights and access to path of travel. And so we're
sensitive about the um the optics about um that advocacy in DC. But I can follow up with you and your staff about and the board members here with um that information. >> Yeah. And that's fair. And before even discussing the optics of the advocacy, I just want to know where that is that regulatory is regulatory.
>> So it's not statute. It's a regulation. >> It's it's my understanding. Uh uh yes I can follow up with you but we have a a write up that delineates where this came from >> because I think as this committee will remember like sometimes 30 or well now it's 20% but 20% of a project which
could be $100,000 um that schools can't afford is going to path of travel upgrades unrelated to the shade structure that are triggered. And I think you can make the argument that this isn't an anti-disability play. This is a climate emergency play. So uh thank you very much. Um, yes. I know I want to
be want to get out Miss Alvarez out of here in the next few minutes because I know she has to run. But Miss Guyire, Mr. Guyer, and then >> just real quickly, is the locationational elements that you mentioned um is that something that is statutory or is that a practice? Um, and
I mean by that I mean we discussed design build as far as currently only being in one location and not multiple locations. Um, so that's one question. And then another question um related to the 20% for ADA. Is that something that
is um if we were to look at uh you know kind of the district as an aggregate that like the 20% could be spread around at different to address different ADA issues at different campuses and not just the campus where the structure is being built. >> So uh we will look at that specifically
but my understanding is that the 20% is on each particular campus. we not that we can spread it out as you just uh suggested but we can look and and confirm that. Um to your first question, um same thing. We're not uh under current law, um we we do not have the opportunity to bundle projects. Um which
is why we're thinking about amending SB17 to give us a flexibility. Should we be able to do econ economies of scale and be able to get contractors as Christina mentioned that would be more interested in in pursuing different projects at multiple campuses. Um but right now um there's no opportunity to
do that through current law. >> Great. Quickly, Mr. Rodriguez. >> Um my question is two-part. You mentioned that a lot of times you're looking into these contracts and things in the fall. Is that because you're you're doing it there because then we're going to try and get the construction done or the on the project in summer
when the kids aren't there or is also has to do with the fact that most laws get passed late in the fall and take effect in January. It >> it's more of the latter. So right now the legislature they start the legislative cycle in January every year and then they complete the process um by
August September every year. So we kind of reassess what happened during this course of this year, what happened to our laws that we were proposing those changes and then we um do a reset in the fall when the legislature is not in session between September and January to come up with uh researching ideas uh
discussing those ideas and then coming to our board of education for final approval of what we pursue in Sacramento. So it's it's a a cyclical process. Um, but just to underscore the the comment from Chair Melo beforehand, um, my office if there's issues that you all bring up and we can continue to work
with our colleagues here, the board members here and staff. Um, we don't have to wait until the fall. We look for opportunities um, and to give Sasha from my team some credit where credit is due. Um, we are, for example, able to make one change uh, related to a facility
provision um, uh, about the cost of inflation uh, adjusting a a metric in in statute that's super outdated. instead of waiting for a bill next year, we were able to get it confirmed into an omnibus education bill. So, we didn't want to wait until January. We're able to convince the legislative staff to add it
into a more technical bill. Um, so, so we're always exploring for opportunities currently, so we don't have to wait until next year. But there are times when the legislative committees, uh, the chairs, the staff, they will tell us this a substantive change. It has to go through a policy conversation and you have to do your own bill next year. Um
but hearing those ideas now and I know we're meeting we're working with the board member um Melvin and the team on some of those issues with DSA. We're getting those ideas now so we can begin those conversations and then be able to determine can they been resolved through the administrative process or do they have to go through the statutory change
in law. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Miss Alvarez. Appreciate it. Um and thanks for your flexibility and timing. Um >> thank you. >> Thank you. I'll acknowledge uh our superintendent in the audience and Andreas there's a place for you up here if you'd like to [laughter] otherwise um
enjoy. Uh and we're now going to go back to our um procurement um presentation. So I'll get the slides set up for Mr. Freeman in a minute. But um there's been a lot of conversation in the past few weeks and months around the how the district contracts for goods and services. We've discussed in this
committee uh in the labor context more generally. We discussed it a little this morning during our committee of the whole. Um, one of the questions we've had is how do RFPs get crafted. Um, there are uh that, you know, the board publicly approves or ratifies the contract when it comes before us, but
like there's a lot of work beforehand to determine how we figure out how we're going to contract for pencils or for chicken or for facilities. Um, facilities specifically we'll talk about I think in May. Um, but uh we wanted to just have an overview uh on the procurement process. So, I will turn it
over to Mr. Friedman, Miss Greer, um, and I will get the slides. Oh, there you go. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. >> Well, hello. Good afternoon, committee members. Uh, committee chair Melvo. I'm
Dana MJ Greer. I support the department as the deputy chief procurement officer, and I'm going to talk to you about the solicitation strategies and how we obtain contracts. It's going to be a pretty high level discussion. So we'll begin with the
strategy. We're going to talk about some opportunities that we recognize and some of the things that we're doing going forward. So this slide is going to create a baseline of the discussion. You already mentioned that it's a several step
process. We're going to call it a sevenstep methodology. someone has to initiate the need and that starts with what we call the request for procurement action and that we're asking very basic questions that include the funding source when it's
needed and who's sponsoring the project. What is it going to be used for? The funding source is important as we were talking about identifying the budget. So, we're knowing how much we're spending. We want to know how long we're going to need it and also if there's any
restrictions related to the funding source. When there's grant funded initiatives, usually the rules of engagement are already outlined and we have to set our strategy related to how
the funding allows us to procure. Most of our conversation is going to be on the solicitation preparation and that's what most people think procurement's role is but our role goes well beyond that in the several stages
that follow the solicitation. We're not just taking it to market. We're should be um structuring the evaluation and the selection criteria to make sure not only that it's competitive but it's going to yield the best result for the district. And then of course
we're preparing it for board approval. We should also be monitoring the contract as it's being utilized for supplier satisfaction for satisfaction of uh the use and to see if any major changes have occurred.
We're going to clearly distinguish the difference between purchasing and strategic sourcing because it is a key difference. Purchasing is just a active buying. It's very transactional. A solicitation that has a an entire
acquisition strategy comes with a plan um and includes a focus. We're developing relationships with suppliers as you heard in industry forums. And when we're trying to understand what some of the drivers are in the market,
we may even ask suppliers what is necessary for them to understand about the district's operations so that they can create a competitive proposal. We don't only want to do that with an incumbent, but we want to do that with other players to try to attract more
competition. So our approach is much more analytical. Um, it takes a lot more time to be strategic than it does just to take a request, understand what to put on the document as far as a statement of work and to
take it out to market. Um, again, I talked about transactional versus strategic. The outcome is much different. Um, we believe that it's going to be much more satisfying when we take a strategic approach than when we
take just a purchase. and we're finding out the gaps along the way. We want to resolve any questions in advance before we go to market. So, with a strategic sourcing um process, we have to understand what it
is we're buying, who are we buying it for, why are we buying it, who's going to receive it, because we're not just thinking about getting into the contract. We're thinking about the invoicing. We're thinking about the level of detail that we need to capture
data in our purchase orders. We're thinking about what the supplier is going to be um considering when they're packaging their proposal and their cost methods. Um the more information that we can get in the beginning and to put that
into the background helps to get their understanding at the time that we take it to market. So, we want to be very clear. The question about where is this purchase outside of LA USD is important because we're trying to set a baseline. Who else
is buying this and how do they buy it? We're usually not going to be the only one who's going to use a a sim a similar service or commodity. So, then it gets to how do you buy it? And there's a lot of different ways to go about it. You heard about piggyback
contracts. you heard about um bench contracts and we can have individual contracts. So doing that that market research helps when we talk about who else is buying it. A lot of times there's a lot of information out there. Um
even getting down to what things cost, who the major market players are. Holding industry forums gives us an opportunity to have those conversations. We can issue requests for information either formally or informally. Sometimes
it can be done uh with phone calls and conversations asking the same questions to multiple suppliers. We learn about terminology because when we set our standards and put our our statements of work together, we don't
want to use our language. We want to use language that the industry is going to understand. Um it makes us a lot more sophisticated when we're speaking in the language of the industry. Um we have to create a marketable scope
of work. A lot of times we're faced with challenging um our own internal team members about what it is that we're buying and why we need it. So if we say we want a 10-year warranty on this uh shade structure,
I'll just point that out. if we were going to ask for a 10-year warranty, but in our history, have we ever needed to call in a warranty claim? Do the shade structures typically have a 5year warranty? Why would we ask for a 10-year warranty? So, when we ask for things
that are outside of what is marketable, it's going to come with a cost because it creates a risk for the supplier. Um, there's a lot of certifying bodies. We talked about tutoring or I heard about tutoring in earlier conversations today. Well, they're certifying bodies
that talk about best practices for tutoring. And having just a little bit of time for the procurement professional to understand what some of those nuances are helps us to be better partners and advocates for our sponsors and helps us
to look more credible when we go out to do the sourcing and we're speaking to suppliers. Standardizing requirements is very helpful. Um, and that can be anything from the electrical supplies, plumbing supplies,
can't do it so much with food, but when we know what we're buying, um, we're just not asking for a market basket of everything that the supplier has available. We should at least have some idea of the type of equipment that we're
supporting and have from our historical spend what we're buying, how much we're buying it of. Do we pick it up? Do we have it delivered? Do we need it across every single region? Can we have one central hub?
That information is critical. Um it does get to the point about how do we get the right price? uh if we can buy based on volume, if we know that our commodities are going to our contracts are going to be for three years, we should have some idea of how much we buy
over a three-year period and be able to scale it. Um we talk in our teams about paro principle. We are also looking at trying to normalize what we buy. So if we see that
across the district we're using several systems to manage um electronic signature that shouldn't be something that every single team has to go out and negotiate on their own. when we say okay these are
the five models that we want to buy in the district that helps us to get the better price and helps it you know for the supplier to reduce any complexity when it's time to enter into agreements. So standardizing can be helpful. Um we
do preach configuration not customization. We do a lot of customization when we find that we're retrofitting to our personal tastes and preferences instead of buying something that can easily be um dismantled or
unplugged. We have a five-year runway and when we enter into the contract, we have to think about how we're going to get out of it because there's a cost that comes to be born when it's time to um integrate
into another system or to transition to another system. So, we want to make that as easy as possible. Planning for the total cost of ownership. If we know there's going to be costs to um get rid of equipment once it's pulled
out, if there's cost associated with that, maybe we want the supplier to bear that instead of having that be a cost that we have to figure out later. So just thinking about it as a total picture, not just what do we buy, when do we need it, and getting it here as
quick as possible. You want to have time to plan So what we see as areas of opportunity is of course making datadriven decisions. Um I hope it's not a surprise if I share and I'm honest with you that when we go to buy things we have to
sometimes ask our suppliers how much do we buy and where do we have it delivered and what is it that we need going forward. We want to get some sales reports and we want to understand and have a place that we can keep a
repository and have a way to pull that data so that we have that history in the future and we can see what the nuances are and our costs and our habits. Um, we should have a contingency so that we're not depending on just one
supplier. So sometimes that would be a reason to have more than one supplier under contract. Maybe one that is our primary and one that's a secondary. So that if one wants to increase the price, maybe we have a second source of supply to go to. Keeping that competition fluid
even after the contract is uh inked and implemented. promoting simplicity in the scope when we get very sophisticated and we're asking for a lot of again personalization or customization or what I would call white glove service
delivered to every school in the region by August 1st instead of maybe having things go to one central location a month in advance and giving us the opportunity to deliver it
um as needed or still by a August 1, but not expecting the supplier to make that happen for us. Some of it maybe we can manage on our own and initiating procurements a minimum a year before it
expires. There's not too many things that we buy that aren't complex that don't require advanced planning. And even in change management requires communications, ordering instructions, getting the information out to schools
and offices about the change. So if we had at least a year, I think we could do a lot better in all of those areas, making it more competitive, making it more specific and um meeting our customers needs.
So, we're going to talk about bench contracts. I know we said RFPs were going to be on the agenda, but we would maybe want to u talk a little bit about master agreements and benches if that's okay. So, with our bench agreements, you can
see the list that we have. It's available on our website. Most of the benches have 20, 30, 40, 50 suppliers on the bench. Some of this information came about when we learned from our
easy to do business with forums what some of the pain points are. So, I think the thought process was great and you do all of the planning in advance, you get the contract in place, you figure out the cost, you figure out um
get the insurance, get everybody fingerprinted, and then they sit on the bench. Well, there's costs to getting all that in place and there's no guarantee of work. And then when we take an item to board, we're saying, "Well, we think we're going to spend this much, but we don't have any commitments and
really not a plan of who's going to use what and which supplier and what price." So that's not necessarily the most advantageous approach. There's different approaches that we can take and there's some that we want to explore. So I did highlight the thought
behind a bench is that we wanted to build greater flexibility and provide schools and offices with an efficient way to procure the services they need and we think there is a different way to do that. So the opportunities that we are
exploring um incorporates getting agreements with suppliers by qualifying them, putting them on a in a pool based on their qualification and their specialties. It could incorporate not to exceed
pricing. It could include um their basket of services, the regions that they prefer to support, um their capabilities, whether they can do large groups or small groups. So all of that can be part of the qualification
process and then they are available to select. In the selection, there still could be levels of competition. Our procurement code allows us to select when it's less than the bid limit. um select one. If
it's up to $250,000, there could be a level of competition that procurement could manage by ensuring that there's rotation in suppliers and fair selection processes.
And once the supplier selected, depending on the dollar value, if it's less than 250,000, it could be ratified. But at that point, they understand what the commitment looks like. So they can now get their insurance in place.
They'll have the contract to get the fingerprints or whatever's necessary to provide the services. They can do that for more than one entity. We we can do that when it's um regional or school specific. So, it does
give a lot of flexibility, but what it doesn't do is commit a supplier to waiting when maybe there's no phone calls and then they're anxious and eager to market their services. Um, so we think it it's going to create more of a
balance. Um, I brought up the tutoring services. It's a 75page guide. So if the schools have to sort through all 75 pages theoretically to figure out where the different opportunities are.
Um we think just providing a list and contact information and some ordering instructions might be the easier approach. And I can pause if there's any questions along the way. Otherwise I'll just continue to share. >> Yeah, I think we'll let you finish the
presentation and do questions after. >> Okay. Sure. Um so the opportunities other opportunities we see um I used the tutoring bench it was authorized for 285 million
um we spent almost 200,000 so the tutoring bench is interesting for my viewpoint because when you think about tutoring you think about more of the one-on-one relationship and this bench also includes um
software and digital tools. So, it talks about um Saturday and weekends and summers. And that's not necessarily the core offering. The core offering is really tutoring for elementary, middle, and
high school students individually or as groups. Um, so when we try to throw everything into the the basket or the bench, then it seems to dilute its appropriateness or you're probably
getting such a mixed bag that you're not able to figure out the comparison between rates. The offerings are just so different and showing the expenses. Some vendors have had zero and some have had 92
million. So that's a big difference. Um there's still some vendors, six sitting on the bench that have had no requests for services. 12 less than a million, a handful over a million but less than three. Um three over 30 million but less
than 100 million. So big wide ranges. With the scenario that I shared, the suppliers would get qualified. They would be identified based on their capabilities. It would probably not be such a mixed
bag. It would probably be that core um so we would understand the cost of tutoring individuals um by region with the economies maybe based on group pricing. um we would understand if they
offer services in the summer, they won't they wouldn't have their own individual categories. So, we think in those kinds of improvements, um the suppliers are going to be able to offer better pricing. They're not committing to providing the insurance
and the fingerprints. Our team would see the efficiencies. When we set up a bench with zero commitment, most of those orders are managed in a separate Excel spreadsheet because we're trying to
track the capacity with every single purchase order. So, it almost breeds its own inefficiencies by trying to to keep it simple and fluid. Once there's a commitment, that commitment is
encumbered. It's identified who, what, when, and then that purchase order can be drawn down and it's going to help us to track the commitment um a lot more clearly.
So, the contracts would either be ratified or would have to come to board with the specifics around the scope. So, there's a few things that we've done this year to get us in better alignment. Um, the first quarter we did an
inventory of all of our contracts to try to figure out how to get ahead of the cycle to try to plan a year in advance. Some of them were still maybe about six months ahead of it, but we're doing better because we at least have a forecast in mind.
Um, we've strengthened our compliance around the contract capacity. So, I shared very transparently with you. There's some tracking on an Excel spreadsheet. There's some things that were managed that maybe should have been on contract that were
identified as off contract, but now we're setting hard limits on our contract around the capacity using what we call a parent child agreement. So, it's helping us to maintain a better understanding of when
we reach the board's um limits, the limits that were set. And another thing we're proud of is that we've started to capture our rebate a lot better. So, we had a point where we were capturing less than 50% of our rebates from suppliers.
there's an amat administrative fee that's paid um when doing business with the district and we're capturing closer to 70% of our rebates now. So over $3 million have been captured.
Um in the second quarter we started to align our buying staff's roles and responsibilities. So distinguishing who can buy what based on their titles and their positions and inventory control
support teams support warehouse not customer service and not doing the role of an assistant buyer. Assistant buyers aren't doing what buyers do and buyers aren't doing what contract administration and analysts do. So that's where the alignment is. Um, we've
increased our technical support to the school, having drop-in sessions, going out to the schools. Our team uh was on a few calls this week and we've cleaned up our templates. So, templates used to be
hundreds of pages long and now we're looking at about 30 pages with more hyperlinks and uh a lot more clarity without all the bureaucracy embedded. and we've done some leadership training.
We're setting new expectations for our teams around metrics and cycle time. So, we're we're trying to do a lot to change our posture and position and what we're going to do going forward is encouraging the thought process around
total cost of ownership. So, what does it look like to get out of the contract? How complicated is it going to be? Um we are going to apply the request for qualifications process with a few different outcomes that are still being
um vetted through legal. Our team members are looking at legacy approaches instead of just using a cookie cut approach. We're trying to be thoughtful. Um offer different alternatives
asking make or buy decisions. Um, can we buy this off of a piggyback at a rate that's probably as competitive? Can we be a lead agency or uh lead on a agreement and offer it to other agencies
or other schools? We're facilitating communications. We're going to have QBRs. We're going to ask for sales reports. and we just have a renewed focus on our habits and our buying patterns and um we're going to do
things different. So, I think that's more or less the conclusion and I'd be happy to address any questions. >> Great. Thank you, Miss Greer. Congratulations again on your contract renewal as well today. >> I appreciate it. >> Um and uh thank you. appreciate the work that the the team is doing to improve
based on feedback from the market from internal divisions from the board. Um I'll turn it to my colleagues maybe starting with my board of colleagues for any questions comments if there are any >> I do. So on the uh areas of opportunity making datadriven decisions based on
traditional value volumes and anticipated future volumes when possible. Where are you going to get that data from? >> We have information that we're capturing from our purchase order history. And at
this time we have to go back and ask our suppliers for sales reports. when we start to get that information quarterly, we'll start to build our portfolio of what we're spending with particular suppliers.
>> I think a good thing to also point out is that um we're a customer, right? And and we should also rely and lean on on those suppliers to provide data to add value to us as a customer. And so a lot of that data should be readily available
and it helps us to make better decisions. >> That's what I was thinking. If if we're buying that already, don't we already have that information? Don't we already have that data ourselves? >> I'm sorry, David. I want to just explain that normalizing what we buy. If we buy
five different brands of pencils, then it's all going to have different numbers. But if we try to standardize and have two brands of pencils, one that's good and one that's excellent, then that helps to streamline it. We don't have a lot of standardization. So
there's a lot of disparity in the way that the data is captured. When we start to break it down by the type of item and maybe what the variation is outside of that, that's going to help us to get a
better picture quicker. So, it's it's setting the ordering instructions up on the front end so that when the invoice comes in, it's invoiced in a way that we can extrapulate that data and then normalize it when we go out to market
the next time. So, our system, we can't really capture the one item as far as a general history, but as Matt said, can't we simply go back to that vendor and say, "Hey, what have we bought from you from the last couple years?" They should be able to provide
this. >> We're going to have to do both. To be honest, we'll have to do both. >> Why? Because we need to be able to create a a history of our buying patterns, when
we buy it, what we buy, how much we buy, so that when we go to market the next time, we can pattern the price model based on our the way that we intend on buying it. So what we don't have currently is ordering instructions and
specifications about the details. Um can I offer you another example? >> Sure. >> Okay. Um we were evaluating our approach to getting lines painted on fields and
basketball courts and parking lots. And I believe there's really only a few different types of configurations that are allowable by our standards. But instead of knowing how many basketball
courts did we have painted and what were the numbers of unique mascots that we requested and how much were those unique mascots versus just the standard lines
and how much paint was used. There was a idea of just asking for a markup on the materials and an hourly rate on the the people who were going to perform the service. So we were looking at going to
market in a model that didn't match how the supplier packages their services. Having an understand we highlighted what we said the paro principle is. So that if we know we use for painting services more basketball lines than we do parking
lots, then maybe we weigh the cost of our basketball court configurations higher so that when we evaluate the cost, it's not just not considered like one each one basketball court, one
painted line because we going to know we we're buying 500 of this, 200 of that so that it gets evaluated based on our history or you know with some level of predictability. >> So I can understand possibly the with
the logos and whatnot for the different schools. I get that that's going to be separate but painting the lines at a school painting the lines at a school all of our what 800 900 plus schools there should not be a problem there. We should have that info on hand because that's been going on since before I
started working for the district. It's a long time. We should have that data readily available. There should not be a problem in regards to those two pencils you were talking about as an example. Why don't we already have that information? If we've been buying it, we
didn't just start getting those. They're not brand new items. We should have that data there because we've been buying it for few decades at least, if not more. The district has a habit of buying towards its tastes and
preferences and budget availability. We don't have a lot of items that are limited to good, better, best or we allow a lot of opportunity to make
choices on taste and preference. And for that reason there's a lot of despair data even with that which is fine normalizing it into a level of category maybe at a top level
of office supply or maintenance equipment or something that gives you at least a baseline and then you start to break it down with different level of detail. We may not need every single detail but we need to have a better picture. >> Okay. But you're saying we're buying things that almost like an on
opportunity when the whole idea of procurement services is to do just what you said which is to get us that best value. So are we doing that or not? >> We're getting better at it. >> That so we're not doing it or we are doing it or that's my question. Are we
doing that or not? Are we getting the best value for the district's dollars? That's that's my question >> with the approach that we're taking. Yes. Is there a different approach that we could take to do better? Yes, >> Mr. Ortiz Rangland, >> which I think makes sense because we're an educational institution. We're
constantly learning and getting better and I appreciate that and the changes that have been made. Um, curious on slide six. So, first of all, how many employees do we have in procurement? >> I can't. >> We have roughly a hundred in procurement. Um, so that that includes
facilities procurement and procurement procurement. There's another 200 and some odd that involve district warehouse, truck operations, uh our mail unit, all the kind of ancillary services that we offer, PER, travel, all the above. >> Okay. I'm particularly curious um on
slide six, you mentioned the marketable scope of work, and I can imagine the hundred or so folks that are working on this might have some expertise, but might also just be generalists in some areas. And this came up recently. The board wrote a resolution that asked for an RFP, and then there was some feedback on the community based safety RFP. So,
how do you go about developing a scope of work given the expertise in procurement andor like where else we might need to get it to be able to craft it in a way that it's marketable? >> I'll have to um share a couple of scenarios, but with the community based safety um we talked about whether this
is bought somewhere outside of LA USD. That particular scope of work was very tailored towards LA USD specific. However, in most situations, tutoring, professional development, even IT
solutions, that's typically been purchased by another school district, whether it's a smaller district or another municipality. And that information is available through uh just public records. It's open on the
market and we can read through what the other scopes of work look like, what the other proposals look like to just try to make sure we're mimicking and mirroring in a sense the same types of language that the supplier community has been
used to when they were courted by other entities. So there should be a level of market research when I shared that when there's more time you can go to uh certifying bodies and understand what are some of the nuances around what
they're teaching the professionals and how to package their services back to other entities. So in short market research but when it's unique to LA USD um we have to rely on internal subject matter expertise. >> That's also what I was wondering. So how
much procurement kind of connects with other divisions in in the district? >> Yeah, I think we're heavily reliant on subject matter experts specific to what the sponsoring departments that are actually bringing whatever they want to buy. And so typically that scope of work or specifications are drafted on that
end and brought to us. >> Okay. Or do you want to add on? >> Yeah. I mean this is my biggest question that I think this addresses a little bit and Mr. Franklin's getting at, but is that how do we make sure we are not um unintentionally or intentionally narrowing the scope in of an RFP such
that we are excluding qualified biders. And there are a few examples, you know, sometimes for infrastructure services will say in the RFP like you have to have served a school district of over 100,000 students. There are like two of those. So it limits it and then by the time you get to the board, oh was an
open public procurement process. Yes, we do. Similarly, there was some procurement for um like family engagement services and the RFP required teaching experience. Now, there might have been a legitimate reason for that, but some of the biders were like, well, if we're doing family engagement, why is
teaching and so that is something that the board never has insight in. I've really been encouraging the team and I appreciate when they've been doing it sending us the RFPs, but like how do we when Mr. in Mr. use Franklin's example like community based safety providers. Somebody in in this building is saying well like then every person there has to
have 10 years of school experience. We never discussed that. The committee never discussed that. That's not a best practice. The RFP goes out. We get 20 biders. We select two and we're told it was a fair open process. But that funnel was too limiting. So what are we doing to broaden it and how do we make sure
that that's not happening? >> The markets will be limited. um the markets just just depending on the industry may not have a lot of players that can meet the needs of the district. In other scenarios, there should be um multiple suppliers and we want to
>> sorry m I just mean we're not about once we're putting like before we go out to market how do we make sure we're not the requirements are not overly restrictive that we are limiting the pool >> because we should understand what that competitive landscape looks like before we go out to market. We should
understand if there are five suppliers or if there are 25 suppliers and we want to invite them and allow time for them to receive the proposal announcement to get registered in Aribba. So that should be part of our creating the foundation.
>> Sorry, just in the interest of time it's not it's really about like community based safety. someone in this building is making the requirement that you have to have worked with um you know at least school districts of over 20,000 kids before you can even qualify. That
decision is not in board resolution. That's not something that the board decides. Somebody in this building is deciding like and it goes to your early slide about the sourcing like what do we need to buy? And so I guess it's it's with pencils that's a little different, but with those contracts whether it's
like how are we ensuring that we're not like you know like why aren't we being as inclusive as possible? >> I I certainly think there's opportunity, right? um the the district has had a a legacy process of
>> um building narrow scope in some instances and um I think over the last year there's a lot of effort towards reviewing that scope and trying to peel out a lot of the things that may cause limitations. Um I think
the the evidence is in the number of biders and proposers that we're starting to see. Um which kind of proves the point that we're we're making progress in that lane. Um there's an example I have uh where we went out for a solicitation that required somebody to
do work in the building using our systems um and and basically supplying a work product um that was solely done within this facility. Um, and as a result of that, we we've added not only cost to the to the proposal. Um, we've limited
the competition to people that actually can do show up at our building, park here, and actually do the work. Um, and that's something that we caught, reddrafted the scope, went back out, and and as a result, there's a ton of savings, and we had a ton of competition. Um, so that's one example.
Um, clearly there's other opportunities that that'll come along, and we want to be able to catch that. And I think the intent for us, especially in procurement, is [snorts] to create and draft um solicitations that allow for competition, the best opportunity for
the widest range of folks to then be able to decide within the district who's best based on cost, quality, all the above. Um, and that's that's a work in progress. Um but I I do want to advocate that that clearly the amount of competition that we've seen over the
last 12 months has been a lot better than what we've seen previous to that. So u progress has been made. >> Thank you. Um two other quick questions for me on slide nine. That's not the entire list of bench contracts we have. Is that just a sampling of contracts
best bench contracts we have? >> Yes, I think there's another group of bench contracts but yes that's a subset. Okay. Um, and then my last question, uh, and I know we've talked about this a little bit in this committee, but I'd love to see the process from the vendor
perspective as well. Um, and I know you're doing these workshops, so you want to work with LA Unified. How do you do that? But you were mentioning whether you go out to five or 25 vendors. Um, like would they, somebody who wants to work with the district, would they even know about any of these RFPs had they
not already registered to be a vendor? Um so sort of you know what does it look like for those folks their their process through all of this? Yes, there are some traditional advertising methods. Of course, the daily journal is something that's required, but we also use uh LACD
ramp. They have a big following and through the discovery platform, it does open it up to other suppliers that are part of the Aribba network that will have the opportunity to see our solicitations,
>> but we would love to come back and maybe map it out from a supplers's perspective. Yeah, >> part of our strategy um about a year and a half ago was to get ourselves out as many types of media as we could. Um you know, I think Martha's left the
building, but um one of the advocacy points that we've actually asked for is to remove the uh print media component of the requirement and code um just because we we doubt that anybody's actually reading the Daily Journal. Um but you know social media um the reeba
platform um the the drop-in sessions that we have as well as a number of events that we're hosting throughout the year. U the intent is basically to get the word out and get exposure wherever and however we can. >> I was just trying to think I saw the uh L USD procurement website at some point
or Instagram. Um you have 111 posts and 467 followers. >> Growing a lot >> growing [clears throat] every day. I love it. Thank you. Thank you. >> And just to toot a horn, that's within the last 12 months. So So the the progress is there. >> I don't know.
>> Um let's just see if there are others and then we'll get back to you, Mr. Evans. Yeah, Miss Cunningham or Miss Cunningham then Miss Andy Numo. >> Maybe it's more of a statement. I'm coming at this I do I'm a parent and so I'm now 13 years with the district and I
was just looking at your list on nine uh and uh I counted nine of those categories that as a parent volunteer who focused on fundraising that I actively tried and worked hard to get around the requirements that came from
the district. I say that not because what you're doing is or not you but collectively the idea that we're creating equitability that that we're giving like a a boilerplate hey you want this pencil here you go but I think so often in our attempt to make everything
equal we have forgotten the individual school sites and my stomach I would maybe steer away from talking about unique logos and mascots because that is what helps to create that community where you feel committed where you want
to stay kindergarten through fifth grade and in my area you're not like you know what it's third grade and I'm going to head over to Elsagundo if I can get in. It's those types of emotional feelings that are not about money and it's about the principal and the the families and
the teachers all coming together to say here's what our school is. Um so that just I just want it's more of a statement. I just the the one voice on here that's like maybe try to not make us where we all have to use this. And I could go down the list of of things, you
know, raising 400 to 500,000 a year and where we spent our money, but definitely going around um and challenges that people had to be able to become a vendor. Anyways, >> I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, can I just say for the logo, we want to be able to get it get the logos uniquely
created at a fair price that's negotiated on the front end. We we do want that. There are some things that maybe we could sacrifice a little personalization, my favorite pencil, but you know, in most respects, we want to provide what the schools need in order
to be successful. >> Yeah. There was another example that I remember too that was websites when we were trying to centralize some of the costs and everyone was like here's your website and yet schools had been and parent volunteers and teachers had been doing the back end for a while and we heard from a lot of my schools around
like wait this is our so that's why like maybe well-intentioned but didn't understand the reality on the ground >> not a single one of my children's schools website is better and I I mean this with love is better after they went to the mandated one from what it was before it might be cheaper but it's not
better and the data is not up there. You can't find the information. So that is it was in my head and thank you. >> No, thank you. >> Miss Annie Newell. >> Um thank you. Uh had a few questions. I think some was touched on um just some of the efforts to maybe unbundle some of
the contracts um to make it a little easier for our small businesses. I know that's something that and I know as we're here it seems like it's all definitely work in progress here. Um and and we're going into the fourth quarter. So those efforts and then when
advertising are we able to advertise in some of the ethnic press to be able to capture some of those small businesses that may not be as you said in the Daily Journal as mentioned. I'm not sure if that's an effort there. We looked at different opportunities and part of our
research was around the readership and where people are going to find us. We think that the social media is really the most wide way to get the information out and just sharing through our followers and encouraging people to know
where to find us. I think we'll get to the point about sharing opportunities in the community. newspaper print is just probably not the pathway in general um long term and of course we're trying to balance out the the contact with the
cost um so social media is likely going to be best as well as once a supplier is registered in Aribba there is some level of um notification that they'll receive >> and when I say ethnic ring not necessarily that it has to be print but
there's different press that they do have online services as well because now folks are reading their paper online. Um you know some people do get their mail. Um I think that's Dr. McKenna only. Um
but um yeah there is online options for the ethnic press. Um the other question I had is the baseline. So as we talk about the changes that are happening, have we already developed the baseline
that we're looking back and saying, you know, these are the things that are different. We're seeing the improvement here and we're able to the point that was mentioned here, collect that data. We're able to see, you know, from quarter 1 to quarter 2, quarter 3, these are the things that have changed and
these are the guidelines that we're using now that, you know, before we didn't have a guideline. Sounds like there was a a lot of not having guidelines cuz it's like a lot of things that we're doing the buying patterns were not there and so we're seeing it now. So are there quarterly reports now
for us to be able to see the transitions or >> this is new language that we're putting in our templates going forward to start to request for sales data. And we're seeing a little bit of success with consolidating um agreements. I talked about the
electronic signature. What we're still challenged with is the fact that the way that the funding occurs, we can really only have one sponsor and one sponsor um usually won't want to take on the
commitment of getting all of the funding lines and budget approvals for other teams. So I think that's an area that still requires more um coordination in order to make it more impactful but it
is still um things that we're progressing and improving upon slowly. So not yet by the time we come back next year we'll have some good information. Um, and then with I mean I appreciate you giving us the opportunity with the
master agreements here on the bench and then with the information that was given here and the numbers that were given here, are we able to project something from this? Because we're looking at some that had none on that bench and then there's some that um, you
know, three had 30 million but less than 100 million. And what are we seeing? Is it the quality better? Are we able to to take information from this subset? >> Um, I think we could make some assumptions based on what we saw utilize on the tutoring bench. Some of them may
not be as clear. I want to suggest that we can break out that information by region and also what was utilized including technology versus the interpersonal services. So we should be
able to provide some information related to that. I can't suggest that all of them would be able to be as clear to distinguish what the differences are to the point that we were sharing with David because of the way the data is captured. It may not have that level of
detail that gives us a big picture, but we're improving on understanding what we're buying. And then with our purchases, do we have guidelines and requirements that we only purchase within state of California? We
don't go outside. Do we have those buying powers? Because I know at the county they are like, "No, stay here. Spend your money within California. You're not buying something in Texas." So, do we have that here? Are those guidelines specific? The conversations
that we are having is when we were planning to go out as a lead agency, it would be a California-based uh consorcia and with that thought in mind. So in some cases, yes, we also also want to
balance that with getting the best um opportunity for pricing and availability of products. So, not necessarily. I'm not sure how narrow that would limit us on some things, but where it's possible. Yes.
>> Is it possible for us to look at the county in that way? I mean, I know they provide different services. They do have some schools, but to be able to see where we can kind of keep the dollar here and versus >> from a supplier that's California based.
>> Correct. Um, I just would want to ask one in some uh solicitations it would be difficult to try to evaluate based on it being a California entity unless we had some support to do that uh legally.
There may be some challenges that way. We don't want to limit competition, but to your point about small business and things of that sort, there are points associated with scoring when it's a small business. Maybe there's a way to
impact proximity with shipping and things of that sort that lean more to a local entity that doesn't require them to be doicile in California because just having an address here when the product's coming from somewhere else doesn't really get to the outcome that I
think we would be intending. >> Got it. Thanks, >> Mr. Rodriguez. And uh on slide number seven, how can we get the best price? In particular, the configure not customized. >> Mhm. >> Now, I'm going to use this as an example of
that. The the shade structures, they were like so expensive because some of them were right. They were like, this is what the school wanted. They said instead of why didn't you guys get us the best price, we have a bunch of them. We'll put them out. And are we going to get a Are we Is that project's not
completed? Right. Is that correct? >> Correct. And there's we had on the agenda an update on the shade structure that we might punt until our next meeting just given the time because we have one more presentation. But yes, it is it like as Miss Tukes can allude to every time we meet about this we say what are the prog the progress well shade structures but also aren't we just
buying one this is what you get um as opposed to every single one getting >> I guess I want to offer it as a consideration. And I don't think we should ever get to the point where we're not considering all options. But in our consideration of options, what is the
benefit of having the customization? What is the cost of having the customization? What does that mean for competitiveness? I think it just should just be part of the acquisition plan and not so fixed and firm that we paint ourselves in a box.
>> Right. Okay. Because I'm just saying I'm still got those numbers stuck in my head about the >> Yeah. Thank [laughter] you. And it was, you know, >> Oh, we we do too, David. We do too. >> But I mean, if I can see how that would something like that could be a one-sizefits-all. I I think because most
most playground structures are going to be pretty much a a set number of square footage or whatever it is. And those same thing, the shade's going to be providing the same amount of rather than, you know, almost a half a million dollars. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you for
previewing what will be a presentation maybe in May on that. Um I I know what Miss Tes would say too is that most of that is in the installation and um liquefaction and all these things but I still think uh we can talk about it. Um my just just to reiterate, thank you for
this. So I do think expanding the I mean the increased number of biders I think is proof of the uh more inclusive scope and so I'm glad we're tracking that. I know we are with facilities some of my big modernization projects we had two biders um really not competition there I know we're working to increase that
we'll talk more about facilities procurement in May but that seems to be something we're tracking now um I I still have questions and maybe as follow-ups we can talk about how things go from like board level discussion of what it needs to be procured to how it gets procured I think an example I've
been thinking about chicken um contracts because when we've been hearing for months about like oh we have to spend so much on contracts and our biggest contracts are facilities construction and then things like chicken. But with chicken, you know, the the board might say things like antibiotic free, but like then somebody in food services is
deciding it's free range or not free range. And if we say free range, we're limiting the pool. Um and there but that might be what the board wants, it might not be. And there are other ways to do things like um award more points. I mean, so I I just again like figuring out how when we're up here and we say
procure chicken um and then down there we find out that like oh we only had two bidters because we said it must be free range only made in Englewood what whatever whatever like who put that there. Um the other thing that I'll mention is that um the the other challenge with the benches that we've
heard a lot about is you know what I refer to as the matchmaking between vendor and school. and you get on a bench and this happened with tutoring and then the the companies don't necessarily know that they can reach out to the schools. The schools don't know that they can reach out to the
companies. Many times when folks reach out to board offices, we are then told usually by procurement or the office of general counsel like you're not allowed to talk to them. They can't contact schools and then it's not a surprise that we have a lot of people who are on this bench. So, um, maybe you could just briefly address that, but like once
you're on the, let's just say, tutoring bench, how does, um, you know, Venice High School, uh, now know, great, these are the 50 providers that we have. Um, and how does the pro how do the providers know like Venice High School is a school that now has tutoring money? Like, how do you get there? So, how do
we make those matches? >> Um, tutoring is probably interesting just because it's managed via our division of instruction, especially around the ELOP funding. And so essentially that's a component of the equation where schools are actually working alongside DOI to uh issue
purchase orders against tutoring. Um I think one of the things that we want to address specifically around the RFQS is that as long as you qualify across a set criteria uh qualifications um that can be across the district. So, a u a
supplier or a business that's located in the west that may be servicing one or two schools that qualifies on this um this RFQ has the ability to to get work or a contract across set criteria that that's performed. Uh and when it comes
to board uh for the board's approval, they're actually seeing the work specific to whatever that contract is associated with. Um, so it's I think it's a a hybrid of what our current bench process is, but there's more visibility and it's specifically around the project or the work that that's
actually coming forward with a contract to allow for the board's visibility into what the work is. >> But I guess I mean well to stick with tutoring, if you're a tutoring provider that's on the bench, are you allowed to market yourself to schools and now reach out just cold email principles and say
we're on the tutoring bench like select us. Does DOI say like based on geographic location like here are the four like how does that match >> work? >> Well, can I just speak to the fact that on our website we provide what we call
this guide that's easy to use the 75 pages. What suppliers would like to do is to have the opportunity to do more like a matchmaking session reverse trade show type thing where they're available to show what they have to the principles. coordinating that is
something that's still being envisioned. Um >> when when they reach out apologize it's we don't consider that to be the most effective approach because getting a principal's attention or the person who's the decision maker their attention
is diluted with all of their other commitments. So, we don't encourage it, but we don't say that it's not allowed. >> But I guess like taking the tutoring example, we have zero, we have six providers who had no work. So, is that because someone in this building didn't
match them to a school? Is that because a principal knew that they could select them but didn't choose them? >> I don't believe so. The instructions on that particular bench suggest that the coordination is between the the school and the company. Um, it could be that
they were added to a bench but maybe for summer and you know so I don't know what the specifics were that didn't coordinate with what the need is >> because I think that you're what you the concern about principles being overwhelmed is also what we hear from some of the vendors which is like no
one's getting back to us but they don't know where and then they're told oh you can't you know because you're there's a cone of silence or then you have to get on the bench and then they get on the bench. So I still, you know, I want to be cognizant of time, but I'm still unclear even after this back and forth around like how, you know, for all these
benches like arts for example, how once you're on the bench, you're aware of where you can get work and where school and how schools know how to select you. >> Our thoughts are for the suppliers to be so eager is because we've put them
through a lot of not scrutiny but processes. get fingerprinted, get your certificate of insurance and have your website up and be in Aribba and you know so we've asked
them to do a lot to not have a commitment. Um without having the commitment then the requirements in advance are less and it is an opportunity once they get selected now they're making the investment. I think
the eagerness, if I can just repeat that, it's because we've had them commit to us and we haven't committed to them. >> Right. And I'm not suggesting that eagerness is a bad thing. I'm just asking like when they went through that process, they're often on an island where they're like, "Okay, now what?"
And they wait um and and schools aren't aware. So maybe we'll get some followup. But yeah, Miss >> So I was gonna ask, is there like a catalog or something that they can go to and say, you know, >> I don't know, they have a rating. I don't know what what is there available or can we create for them once they're
on the bench so folks can see you know they can look at a synopsis of what they do and so is that available or not? So nothing is available for the school sites to review.
>> It is available. It's on our website. It's a guide that's 75 pages long. It could be easier, but we know there is there is a tool, but it could be easier. >> And I think that's the goal that we're
trying to find things that are I mean, the last slide you just put up, I think, what was the last slide, the icon on the last slide. [laughter] >> Yeah, the last slide. >> Easy. >> Uhhuh. And you know, I think we just
have to do a better job. I mean, the district has been and we're trying to change this narrative of hard to work with. I mean, and it's quite embarrassing when you go into the public and you're like, "Oh, we're really like, oh, you know, you're like, wow, I know.
I know." And you take that often because that's what we do. We're out there and folks like, "Yeah, I want to work with y'all. I just want, you know, and it's not a good feeling." And so, we got to do our best. And I know this is a process. And that's why I'm asking what are we doing phase one, quarter 1, quarter two, quarter three, now fourth
quarter to be able to get to that page, right? To be aware it's easy. I'm not saying that we lower our standards, but at the same time, if we're going to be a partner in this and we're working together to provide for our students and families, that we're doing our best to
be able to make this happen. And as you mentioned, you know, it could be easier than I mean, what what are we doing to make it easier? So that's probably the next step, right? Yes, it's the collaboration, it's the coordination, and it's the conversation that we're having with the suppliers and with you.
And we're taking it back and we're applying our lessons learned. >> Yeah. Going back to slide nine, the uh master agreements. >> Yes. >> Is that the total list of uh it's larger? >> It is larger. there were partners for
student success and they had a list but um just for time and to reflect on the variation um I just chose that subset. So we had photographers and then we had yearbooks and you know there's some overlap and there's some that are
probably too broad and some that are too specific. So it was just more for illustration. So then I have a question. Would any of this uh be considered local 99 work and if so will that be part of the task force will be involved in that?
>> I want to suggest that going forward that has to be considered. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Um it's thank you Miss Greer and uh Mr. Freeman. It's a more more to come. I think we have some follow-ups particularly helpful questions around the benches too and
making it easier for schools. um want to quickly just connect or um discuss the delegation of authority given that the board kind of referred it to the committee. Um we are going to punt on the shade um conversation until May um and we have public speakers but uh
there's not a presentation for this um item, but I'm going to say a minute or two of uh introducing introduction and then turn over to Mr. Freriedman and then really just get the board's or the committee's feedback. Um but the board delegates authority to the superintendent in various ways and for
various reasons. Um and periodically the board updates or changes that delegation. Um and I think there are a couple dozen uh such formal delegations of authority and many of them have to do with procurement processes such that the work of the district can happen without board approval on everything. Um I think
in general the delegations are ripe for global review and I think we should be doing more of that. Um, but when I learned that facilities was looking for some updated delegation, I wanted this committee to review it um, per our charge to make sure it serves the needs of of kids in the district. Uh, and so
I'm going to ask Matt to explain the request with any clarification needed from Miss Tes and then just give folks on the committee the opportunity to ask questions or share thoughts um, before we conclude in a few minutes. So, Mr. Freriedman, >> thank you. So the the request is essentially to increase the the
delegated authority from 85 million to 145 million across facilities construction projects. Um and so if you go back to 2015 I believe was the last time that this number was looked at. Um the the board gave that delegation to uh
procurement to actually execute agreements. Um so if you look at cost escalation from 2015 to today 10 years um that essentially equates to what the ask is. Um the reason that we're bringing it forward is essentially um a
number of areas that that we can control. Um and one of that those as um Miss Tesh previously mentioned is the sausage making on the back end. Um, so after a contract's actually awarded, um, there's a roughly 45 to 60 day time
period where the award goes through kind of a vetting process internally within the district to then come actually onto a board report. And so by doing this or allowing um us to increase it to 145 million, that allows us to move faster on projects going up to that that
threshold essentially. >> Great. And I'll note the committee has the board report and the language in in front of you. So curious if folks have Yeah. Mr. Franklin. >> Yeah. When this was on our board materials, I had some concerns during briefing that Miss Stokes um you know
calmed my nerves about which is that the board would see these projects on the front end at least once. It sounded like maybe even twice we see the projects. Um so it's not like the uh you know the community is going out for $140 million worth of projects that haven't been sunshine before the public. Um so that
you know was comforting that the board is seeing this twice and it's really just shortening um the movement on these projects by a couple of months. Um and also that it's actually not that many projects. I think we had heard it was maybe 14 projects over the last 10 years
just because of the large scale. Um so I uh I didn't actually know that this was coming to committee um until I saw this on the agenda um because I was supportive and I didn't know if there were other concerns as to you know why the full board wasn't supportive at the time. Um, but I can just say that my concerns were addressed through a
briefing and I was ready to support it. >> Great. Thank you, Miss Ortiz Franklin. Other questions, comments? I I guess as folks are looking at it, one question. So, given that the board meets monthly um explain so what Mr. Franklin was
saying is that the board has to initially authorize the outlay of like $100 million for this project um or $150 million for the project before you start doing this work. that would be under the delegated authority. But if this were not to be granted, help explain the delay. Is it you were mentioning Mr.
Freeman from kind of the award of the contract to the vetting before the board, but like am I wrong in assuming that it's just a 30 day delay given that the board meets every month? >> Yes. So there there's um document cut
offs internally where reviews go through. Um, so if you don't hit that cut off time or award or contract um and actually make it to the document preparation point, it's going to um move over to the next board meeting. So there's that like 45 to 60 day time
frame. Um, and it's really internal kind of review across a number of things going on within board documents. Um, and you know, if I looked at it holistically, these are things that we can control as a district to move things faster. And as a result, um, the reason
we're bringing it forward Can you explain I mean so these are internal processes and maybe it's from Miss Tes but I guess the um the idea is that you are in those I guess the idea is that in those 45 to
60 days you are doing internal vetting to make sure that it is a like that the like I guess what I'm trying to articulate is like if we grant this authority and then you do that vetting and then it comes back and there was a mistake like what's what's happening that 45 to 60 days like what makes this
material as a delay? >> Maybe the the word vetting is probably not the right word to use. Um the the process by which um the awards go through a a document review process within the district um not necessarily vetting of the contract that's done
prior to actually awarding. So the the the word vetting is is probably not the right word, >> but it's it's more about the I don't want to say because I use bureaucracy pjoratively usually usually, but like the bureaucratic process that you have to do to get before the board, there's
not anything substantive really that happens there, but you have to do it. And if we delay on the delegation, then it just slows down the projects. >> I think it's it's informing the the entirety of the district to be able to be prepared to have those kind of conversations at a board meeting. Um, and coming, you know, coming from the
private sector, I would probably use that word as well uh around uh but but I think it's also a fair conversation as far as being able to have everybody aware of what's going on. >> Yeah. >> Did you want to chime in? >> Yeah, I I'll just add it's um it's not
in the vetting of the content of the um proposal. That is all done um at the time of selection. It's really all the reviews in getting a board document to the board. So there's a number of signoffs that occur in every board report. You see at least seven signatures. Each of those departments
have to have time to review um to sign it. So it is a bureaucratic process. I know you've compared us to um you know our private school competitors who are working on the palisades. they do not have to go through a process of getting a board report, you know, signed,
reviewed by several different, you know, entities to then get it into legisl then get it to the superintendent to then get it to a board briefing. So, I just wanted to assure you it's not the um quality of the content that's being debated. It's just the sausage making of
bringing an item to the board and there are various deadlines you have to meet in order for those um to agendaize something to go to the board. >> Miss Andy Newwell and then Mr. Rodriguez. >> And so the increase authority makes this
faster. >> Yeah. So what we're simply doing is we're saying that approximately 10 years ago um there was a delegation that was given to um chief procurement officer that had basically said for all projects that were under 85 million and under um
that we could move forward with NTPing the contract and that the contract would be brought to the board for ratification. So the board still sees it. They still have to ratify it, but it was a way to expedite projects so that you weren't caught in the minutia of every single contract being brought to
the board. Unfortunately, $85 million 10 years ago is now $145 million today. That's just the construction cost escalation over 10 years that is determined by the state of California um over an index that they put together. So
we're just asking to be kind of brought up to today's value of $85 million is 145. So we're keeping the same spirit of 10 years ago. We're just reflecting today's costs. >> And so if we had to give an example,
just say out of 20 projects, right? 20 of those projects that are now at the today's prices >> would have to wait. Is that what it is? because we don't have the today's prices as the authorization. Is that what
>> correct? So we've had and it's not a lot um but there is a sweets point. So any project that is between the essentially 85 and 145 of which there were 14 or 10. >> I have >> 14. So 14 in the last 10 years. Not a
lot. Um, essentially we probably lost up to 60 days because we brought those to the board for approval and that rather than ratification. So all we're doing now is we're just saying let us update that number to 145, we'll still bring it for ratification, we'll be able to save
60 days. And though 60 days doesn't sound a lot when we were seeing, you know, escalation of 39% >> um, you know, over the last three years, 60 days is, you know, does impact costs. Um, and not just on cost, but you know,
when our communities are always demanding that projects um, get done quicker, it's much harder to ask a contractor to shave if you have a 12- month schedule to shave two months off your construction schedule than shaving two months off of, you know, getting
paperwork kind of routed is the idea. >> Got it. Thanks. >> So, my question is, I'm gonna generalize this really big time. Okay. We're gonna You're basically trying to streamline so we could possibly more than likely save some money. Is that >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, that's a great That's a great summary. >> Okay. Um great. Well, thank you. The board will be taking this up again at the next meeting for uh for ratification or approval of that delegation. Um thank you. Appreciate everyone's
flexibility as the board was delayed today. Um we will punt like I said on shade. Um, I will have our closing. Um, well, I'll say maybe before public comment. Well, we'll do our one public speaker. I think we still maybe have one and then we will talk about our final meeting and then let everyone get on
their way. So, Mr. McClean, to you for public comment. >> We we do have three, but I think it will go uh quickly. Uh, Mr. David Tokoski, are you in the audience, sir? There you are. Please come on up. You'll have two minutes to speak once you >> Thank you very much. It's it's not about saving money because in fact when you
don't see things you don't know that things are escalating. You're not bringing things forward. For example, a bakery at Dorsy High that comes forward. It's now almost two years since the board voted on that. That's not because of the procurement process.
That's something else going on. The um bond oversight committee has to see these things too. every single one of these bond. So when you do a $300 million project at Bell Shelter for a a
kitchen, somebody has to go through it and find out that the land doesn't even belong to the district before you do it. It's federal land. So let me just say very quickly, uh, Miss Frank, Dr. Franklin, sorry. Um, good question on the issue of the number of people, but
it also should be a time thing from the '07. how many people were working in that and how many to get cut down and Dr. Dr. Melo and you could get the org chart in this way. Let's find out the org chart so you finally know how many people are in every division. There's a bunch of problems with
delegation. You don't hear things or I should say procurement when a contract changes from K to 12 and suddenly becomes K8. Does that raise suspicion? Does the department of construction changing it? Does it raise a question?
$250,000 contracts. the number of $250,000 which is underneath the the level of of oversight has increased fairly dramatically. The tutoring question, great question. Bring the qu the tutoring companies in here. They're under a gag order. They can't even tell
you what how good they're doing or how how they'd like to improve things. You can't make good policy that way. Licenses. you issue licenses to all these uh software companies and you don't even check how many people actually use the licenses and whether or not two companies are the same company
and make the proper uh uh sales and saving money. So it goes on and on and on and let me just say that bundling we did the primary centers in this district when I was a schoolboard mentor and we did it by bundling Mayor Rearen did it by bundling six primary centers and
Turner Construction did the work. Now, you're telling me if you don't bundle things, you don't get a Turner construction. And Ann and Kirk Douglas made over 400 primary uh facilities, playground facilities. I bet they weren't spending $450,000 because no
foundation would have that kind of money. >> Next speaker is Lafayette Love. Are you in the room? You're signed up to speak remotely, but I do not have you signed in. All right. How about Takur? I see you are on the line remotely. Please press star six to unmute yourself and you have
two minutes to speak once you begin. Thakur. >> Good afternoon. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Please go ahead. >> Okay, great. Um, good evening uh board members New Bill Malvo Franklin and all else in the room. I'm not here today to speak on virtual academy issues. I'm
here to speak on something else. I would like to give a shout out to Dr. Deborah Bryant and board member Franklin and Miss um Alvarez from your office for facilitating conversations on graduation and we'll be having our own graduation for the leadership virtual academy on June 12th at Garfield High School. Uh board member Franklin, if you happen,
you know, to be free, you know, out of your busy schedule on June 12th, 3M, I'd love, you know, for you to see the product of, you know, the conversations you facilitated and uh I would love to honor you in my speech as saludiatoran. But um anyway, I'm here today to speak about um as a student and as a member of
the superintendent student advisory council on the issue of school police, which is of course a contentious one, but I'd just like to share my insights um within the SSAC and other student advisory councils. Students have talked about and are aware of um the growing
concerns around safety um for example, fighting, bullying, these different categories up to 100% in many cases, which is outrageous. And I've talked to many students from all different diverse backgrounds and many um members of faculty including here within Bodri and everyone I've spoken to except one
person who themselves was 50/50 has stated that they support school police and thought it was beneficial to school climate. And way back when before I was a virtual academy student I used to go to um Western Avenue Elementary School and each week I would look forward to story time with the local cops at the
local library. they were role models to me and that was very helpful. Um, and very last point, um, a few months ago as I was watching a presentation on school police and board presidentson mentioned that the board should consider doing a survey to ask what school communities, parents, students, teachers think of
school police. As far as I know, that hasn't been done yet, unless I'm wrong. U, but I ask that the board please consider doing that to see what, you know, these school communities would like to, you know, would like to see happen with this issue. Uh, thank you so much for your time. have a great night.
>> Thank you for your time. That concludes public comment. >> Thank you all. Apologies again for the delay. Um our last meeting will be on May 19th and so we'll have some shade follow-ups uh and uh a few more presentations and we'll spend some time discussing the committee's recommendations for the year. So, thank
you all and get home safely.